Howl at the Moon Broadbeach Pty Ltd v Lamble

In the case of Howl at the Moon Broadbeach Pty Ltd v Lamble, the appellant, a nightclub operator, was found liable for an incident in which a barman employed by the appellant struck the respondent, Mr Lamble, in the head with a long-handled metal dustpan while Mr Lamble was standing outside the nightclub entrance. The respondent sued the appellant for damages, claiming assault and battery, negligence, and/or breach of duty, asserting that the appellant was vicariously liable for the barman’s conduct. The primary judge found in favour of the respondent, holding the appellant vicariously liable for the barman's actions and awarding the respondent $1,399,000 in damages. The appellant subsequently appealed the judgment and the order for indemnity costs.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge was correct in finding the appellant vicariously liable for the barman’s actions, and whether the primary judge erred in making the order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs on the indemnity basis. The appellant argued that the barman’s actions were outside the scope of his employment, and thus the appellant should not be held vicariously liable. Furthermore, the appellant challenged the indemnity costs order, asserting that it was disproportionate given the respondent’s success rate.

The court held that the primary judge’s findings were correct. It was determined that the barman’s actions, although aggressive, were within the scope of employment as they occurred in the course of the barman's duties. The court found no error in the primary judge’s reasoning and dismissed the appeal. The indemnity costs order was also upheld, as the court found that the respondent’s claims, though not entirely successful, were not without merit and thus justified the order.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.